every religion could define "marriage" for their own little private cult

and the government would only recognize the contract of a civil union, which is all the government needs, the legal contract.

One church could call marriage between only a man and a womanAnother church could do same sex marriagesand even Mormon boy could have his poly marriage and call it that

and all would be recognized equally by the law governing civil unions

and they could point fingers at each other all day long calling the other heathens and it would mean absolutely nothing.

The nice part about doing it that way is that even non-relationship unions could be done. 2 older women for example not in a sexual relationship, but close friends with no family could join in such a civil contract for mutual support.

The key to this would be the government no longer recognizing the word... marriage, as any kind of legal term, the government only recognizing civil contracts.

That would solve the mess for everyone.

( granted there would be screaming from the hilltops as currently married couples would be under the same contract. But it would not harm my marriage, I don’t care what the government calls it, and I could care less what any religion calls it, we define our marriage in personal terms, and the law by the legal term )

<quoted text>I have no ideastill that idea would workevery religion could define "marriage" for their own little private cultand the government would only recognize the contract of a civil union, which is all the government needs, the legal contract.One church could call marriage between only a man and a womanAnother church could do same sex marriagesand even Mormon boy could have his poly marriage and call it thatand all would be recognized equally by the law governing civil unionsand they could point fingers at each other all day long calling the other heathens and it would mean absolutely nothing.The nice part about doing it that way is that even non-relationship unions could be done. 2 older women for example not in a sexual relationship, but close friends with no family could join in such a civil contract for mutual support.

Same sex couples want nothing short of real marriage just like hetero couples. And I agree with them, they should have it.

So your dopey plan won't work. Hetero couples don't have to settle for civil unions and homosexual couples should not have to either. Nor should polyamorists.

<quoted text>Same sex couples want nothing short of real marriage just like hetero couples. And I agree with them, they should have it.So your dopey plan won't work. Hetero couples don't have to settle for civil unions and homosexual couples should not have to either. Nor should polyamorists.

Under what I just said, they would be 100% equal, as the government wouldn’t recognize heterosexual marriage either.

<quoted text>Rosie....Rosie.....Rosie....pe rsonally there's no good argument for gay marriage.

Equal rights.No other argument is needed.

Pietro Armando wrote:

Frankie may feel different. But ya can't argue for "marriage equality" for those forms of marriage you like, and ignore those you don't. Plural marriage people are knocking on the rainbow clubhouse door. They want some of that "marriage equality" you keep harping about.

They have it. They have the same right to marry more than one person everybody else does.

Pietro Armando wrote:

Don't be mad cuz they want to crash the party. Kody Brown and his wives support you, can't you support them?

Stupid troll, equal means "the same". Everybody is treated equally, the same, when it comes to getting married to more than one spouse, so it's not an equal rights issue. Are you really so dumb you don't understand that? But everybody is not treated equally when it comes to getting married to a man (or a woman), so that is an equal rights issue.

Should everybody be able to marry more than one spouse? Well, why not start a forum and talk about it?(Notice, I'm not stating a position on polygamy, it's just a red herring in this forum.)

<quoted text>Exactly right, it is an argument to get people to say something that they can re-apply opposed to same sex marriageIt is an old tactic

I find it difficult to see the logic of defending monogamous marriage as the historic norm when the laws of many states have already departed from the principle that it is heterosexual, monogamous marriage that is essential to social stability.

If heterosexuality is no longer legally, morally or socially relevant to marriage, why should monogamy continue to be so important?

If you remove gender diversity from marriage in the name of same sex marriage, to create a new standard of gender segregated marriage...To make your government gender blind to mothers, sisters, daughters, fathers, brothers and sons;That's on you. We naturally reject ersatz gender equality. Women in combat units is a sick joke!

Speaking of joke...When are members of pro sports teams in MD going to be forced to marry each other? Will they have to be on the same team?

<quoted text>Under what I just said, they would be 100% equal, as the government wouldn’t recognize heterosexual marriage either.

Brilliant plan dippy! Now sell it to everyone. I suggest you start with gay couples. Tell them that you are going to downgrade their marriages, but it's OK because you're going to do it to hetero couples too.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.